Over the course of three sessions, on January 12, 15, and 17, debates took place in the State Duma concerning the question of expanding its budget rights. The Cadet Party, with the signature of 40 Duma members, introduced a draft for such expansion. Representatives of all parties expressed themselves on this matter. On behalf of the government, the Minister of Finance delivered two lengthy speeches. A representative of the Social-Democratic workers' party also spoke. And the debates concluded with the unanimous (the "Stolichnaiya Pochta" of January 18 puts it this way) adoption of the Octobrists' proposal: to refer the bill concerning the expansion of the State Duma's budget rights to a commission, "without touching upon the scope of this change," i.e., the changes to the rules of March 8, which particularly constrain the State Duma's budget rights.

How could such a strange phenomenon have come about? How is it that in the Third Duma, in the Duma of the Black Hundred die-hards, the Octobrists' proposal, corresponding in essence to the government's wishes and made after the first speech of the Minister of Finance, who had outlined precisely such an outcome, passed unanimously? In essence, the Cadets' draft was unacceptable; in particulars – why not change the law. Thus declared the minister of the Black Hundreds. In accordance with this declaration, the Octobrists revised their proposal, emphasizing that they did not touch upon the scope of changes to the law.

That the Octobrists converged with the Black Hundred minister is not surprising. That the Cadets withdrew their draft (which, of course, contained not a word about the fact that they were not touching upon the scope of changes indicated by themselves!), this too is not surprising for all those acquainted with the nature of the Cadet party. But that the Social-Democrats could participate in unanimity of such a kind – this is incredible, and we wish to believe that "Stolichnaiya Pochta" spoke an untruth, that the Social-Democrats did not vote for the Octobrists' resolution.

However, there is a more important question here than the question of whether the Social-Democrats voted for the Octobrists or not, namely the question of an error, undoubtedly committed by the Social-Democratic deputy Pokrovsky the Second. On this error and on the actual political significance of the debates of January 12, 15, and 17, we intend to dwell to attract the attention of our readers.

The Russian State Duma does not possess budget rights, inasmuch as a refusal of the budget does not halt "by law" the implementation of the budget. This law, issued by the counter-revolutionary government after the defeat of the December uprising (February 20, 1906, the notorious "Fundamental Laws"), is a mockery of popular representation on the part of the Black Hundreds, the Tsar, and the landowners. And the "rules" of March 8, 1906 even further accentuate this mockery, creating a multitude of petty constraints upon the consideration of the budget in the Duma and establishing even (in Article 9) that "in the discussion of the draft state budget, such expenditures and revenues cannot be excluded or altered as have been included in the draft on the basis of existing laws, establishments, schedules, as well as imperial decrees issued in the manner of supreme administration." Is this not a mockery? One cannot alter anything that corresponds to laws, and establishments, and schedules, and simply imperial decrees!! Is it not laughable to discourse after this on the budget rights of the Russian State Duma?

The question now arises: what were the tasks of a bourgeois democracy truly fighting for freedom in the face of such a state of affairs? What are the tasks of the workers' party? – in this article we speak only of the tasks of parliamentary struggle and parliamentary representatives of the corresponding party.

It is evident that the question of the Duma's budget rights had to be raised in the Duma in order to fully clarify, both before the Russian people and before Europe, the Black Hundred mockery of tsarism, in order to demonstrate the complete disenfranchisement of the Duma. The immediately practical purpose of such a clarification (apart from the fundamental task of every democrat – the revelation of truth before the people, the enlightenment of its consciousness) was determined further by the question of the loan. The Black Hundred government of the Tsar could not maintain itself after December 1905, and cannot maintain itself now without the aid of world capital in the form of loans from international bourgeoisie. And the bourgeoisie of the entire world gives billion-ruble loans to an obvious bankrupt, the Tsar, not only because, like every usurer, it is enticed by high profits, but also because the bourgeoisie is conscious of its interest in the victory of the old order over revolution in Russia, inasmuch as at the head of this revolution stands the proletariat.

Thus, only the clarification of the entire truth could be the purpose of raising the question and of the debates in the Duma. Practical reformism could not be the purpose of a democrat at this time and in these circumstances, because, first, it is clear that reform is impossible on the basis of the given Fundamental Laws concerning the Duma's budget rights, and second, it would be absurd to propose to a Duma of Black Hundred die-hards and Moscow merchants the expansion of its rights – the rights of such a Duma. The Russian Cadets (whom only the ignorant or the simple-minded could consider democrats) naturally did not understand this task. Having raised the question, they immediately placed it on a false foundation of partial reform. We do not, of course, deny the possibility and necessity for a democrat and a social-democrat sometimes to raise the question precisely of partial reform. But in such a Duma as the Third, at such a moment as the present, on such a question as budget rights, mutilated to the point of absurdity by sacrosanct Fundamental Laws, this was absurd. The Cadets could raise the question in the form of a partial reform – we are prepared to make even such a concession – but democrats could not so treat this question as the Cadets did.

They pressed upon the so-called business side of the question, upon the inconvenience of the March 8 rules, upon their disadvantageousness even for the government, upon the history of how various idiotic laws against the Duma were written in the idiotic chancelleries of Bulygin, Witte, and the rest of that gang. Most vividly the spirit of the Cadet approach to the question was conveyed in the following words of Mr. Shingarev: "There are no encroachments (on a limitation of the monarch's prerogatives) in the draft which we have introduced, there are no hidden thoughts (!!) in it. In it there is only the striving for the sake of the convenience of the Duma's work, for its dignity, for the necessity to accomplish the work to which we are called" (emphasis ours; p. 1263 of the official stenographic reports, session of January 15, 1908).

Such a subject, instead of enlightening the people's consciousness, obscures it, for he speaks obvious falsehood and nonsense. And even if this Mr. Shingarev, together with all his Cadet fraternity of politicians, sincerely believed in the "usefulness" of his "diplomacy," we in no way can alter this inevitable conclusion. A democrat must reveal to the people the abyss between the rights of parliament and the prerogatives of the monarch, and not blunt his consciousness, not distort political struggle, reducing it to bureaucratic correction of laws. By posing the question thus, the Cadets show in deed that they are competitors of the Tsar's officials and the Octobrists, and not fighters for freedom, not even for the freedom of large bourgeoisie alone. Only vulgarly-liberal-minded officials speak thus, not representatives of parliamentary opposition.

In the speech of the Social-Democrat representative Pokrovsky the Second – we must recognize this with gladness – a different spirit is clearly evident, a different principled approach to the question is given. The Social-Democrat said directly and clearly that popular representation in the Third Duma he recognizes as falsified (we quote from "Stolichnaiya Pochta" of January 18, as we do not yet have at our disposal the stenographic reports of this session). He emphasized not trifles, not the bureaucratic history of the law, but the impoverished and oppressed condition of the popular masses, millions and tens of millions. He correctly declared that "one cannot speak of the State Duma's budget rights without irony," that we demand not only the right to redesign the entire budget (the official with a lucrative post, Kokovtsov, disputed most of all in the Duma against officials without lucrative posts, Shingarev and Adzhemov, on the question of the permissibility and limits of "redesigning"), but also "to restructure the entire financial system," "to vote a refusal of the budget to the government." He concluded with no less correct and obligatory for a member of the workers' party demand for "the fullness of popular sovereignty." In all these respects, Pokrovsky defended conscientiously and correctly the Social-Democratic point of view.

But he committed in doing so a lamentable error – judging by newspaper reports, the entire Social-Democratic faction committed it, having given such a directive to its speaker. Pokrovsky declared: "We support the proposal of the 40, as tending toward the expansion of the budget rights of popular representation."

To what end was this declaration of support for a proposal, knowingly unprincipled, knowingly incomplete, knowingly signed by unprincipled and incapable of showing even a shred of firmness individuals – a proposal, knowingly practically worthless? This was not support for a struggling bourgeoisie (a formula which many love to use to justify their political spinelessness), but support for the shakiness of liberal-Octobrist bourgeoisie. And that this is so was at once proved by facts. The Cadets themselves proved it, withdrawing their proposal from voting and joining the Octobrists': "refer to a commission, without touching upon the scope of changes to the law" (!). For the hundredth and thousandth time "support" of the Cadets led to the deception of those providing support. For the hundredth and thousandth time facts have exposed all the wretchedness, all the inadmissibility of the tactic of supporting liberal, Cadet proposals, proceeding along the line et cetera[145]

If the Cadets, instead of joining the Octobrists, had introduced to a vote a statement in which it was clearly and precisely said of the impotence of the Duma in financial questions, of the falsification of popular representation, of the ruin of the country by autocracy and the inevitable financial crash, of the refusal of representatives of democracy to vouch for loans under such conditions – this would have been an honest step of bourgeois democrats – an act of struggle, not an act of stupid lackey-like servility. Such an act we would have been obliged to support, not forgetting to stipulate separately and independently our own Social-Democratic goals. And such an act would have brought benefit to the cause of enlightening the people and exposing autocracy.

The Duma's defeat of such a statement, the furious scandal of the Black Hundred against such a proposal would have been a historical service of democracy and a probable stage of a new struggle for freedom. But now the Cadets have once again defeated themselves. Comrade Social-Democrats in the Duma! Guard the honor of the socialist workers' party, do not allow yourselves to be defeated by support for such liberalism!

One unbridled reactionary departed in the Duma from the tactic of the Octobrists – to gloss over disagreements, to entice the Cadets into agreement. Kovalenko, a Black Hundred, directly expressed himself in the State Duma on January 12 in favor of not even referring the Cadets' draft to a commission (p. 1192 of the stenographic reports). But this hero voted, apparently, with the Octobrists: he was courageous only in words. In his speech he excellently illustrated the actual state of affairs, citing as proof of the necessity of special powers such an example: "Let us name, say, an uprising in Moscow, the dispatch of punitive detachments. Was there time then for the government to observe the usual procedure…" (p. 1193). It is a pity that the Social-Democrats do not catch these sparks of truth from the Black Hundred. You are right, colleague deputy – one should have said to him. There is no time for the usual procedure here. Let us then drop hypocrisy and acknowledge that we are living through not the "usual procedure," but civil war; that the government is not ruling, but waging war; that the condition of Russia is the condition of an uprising barely held in check. This will be the truth, and it is useful to remind the people of the truth more often!{133}

"Social-Democrat" No. 1, February 1908. Signed: N. Lenin

Published according to the text of the newspaper "Social-Democrat"